Beech Sierra

Groundpounder

En-Route
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
2,954
Location
New Hampshire
Display Name

Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
What can you tell me about the Beech Sierra? Speed, flight characteristics, range, useful load? How does it compare to the 172?

Tnx
 
Low wing,roomier cabin ,over wing entry.a little more speed handles comparable to the low wing cherokees,feels a little heavier.
 
Beechcraft feel and room. Two doors vs one, will fly around 130, funky nose gear that rotates.

Almost bought one.
 
Is there such thing as a fixed gear Sierra? Someone I met says he has a Sierra, but it is fixed gear.
 
Everything that everyone else said above plus plane sits high and in my one time flying one I'd say it feels like it flys on rails. Was very stable. I think some have a back door like the cherokee 6.
 
If someone gave me Sierra, I would douse it with 100LL and set a match to it, and not even worry about making an insurance claim. I would be doing the world a favor by making sure there was one less of these around.

You get all the speed of a fixed gear, with all the maintenance of a retract. Yay!

Cruises at 130? In MPH maybe. I was getting my commercial in one while I owned a PA28-180. My 180 was faster than the Sierra.

Climb performance? Climbs like a homesick pig. Forget what the book says, the take off roll is like David's current ass-dragging avatar, and once off the ground, it's like trying to push Roseanne and Oprah up a hill in a wheelbarrow with a flat tire.

But it is awesome at emergency descents, because it doesn't want to stay up in the air. Probably because all the other airplanes are making fun of it, and it wants to get away from them. "But, I'm a Beechcraft!" All the other planes are saying, "Yeah, whatever Air Pig."

It is comfortable, I will say that, but the positives end there. Of course, it's also like riding a moped or a fat chick...
 
Everything that everyone else said above plus plane sits high and in my one time flying one I'd say it feels like it flys on rails. Was very stable. I think some have a back door like the cherokee 6.

Hmmm....ok.
 
Fixed gear Sierra is the Musketeer Super III. 200HP, same basic engine, cabin, some have CS prop, but no retract.

Slow, stable, comfy, solid, safe, boring.

The Sierra main gear retracts outward. It's a goofy system, but pretty robust. Get someone who knows the aircraft well to work on it.
 
If someone gave me Sierra, I would douse it with 100LL and set a match to it, and not even worry about making an insurance claim. I would be doing the world a favor by making sure there was one less of these around.

You get all the speed of a fixed gear, with all the maintenance of a retract. Yay!

Cruises at 130? In MPH maybe. I was getting my commercial in one while I owned a PA28-180. My 180 was faster than the Sierra.

Climb performance? Climbs like a homesick pig. Forget what the book says, the take off roll is like David's current ass-dragging avatar, and once off the ground, it's like trying to push Roseanne and Oprah up a hill in a wheelbarrow with a flat tire

But it is awesome at emergency descents, because it doesn't want to stay up in the air. Probably because all the other airplanes are making fun of it, and it wants to get away from them. "But, I'm a Beechcraft!" All the other planes are saying, "Yeah, whatever Air Pig."

It is comfortable, I will say that, but the positives end there. Of course, it's also like riding a moped or a fat chick...

Okay…tell us how you really feel! Although my sentiments toward Beeches is generally very positive, it doesn't extend to the Musketeer/Sierra. They're all sleds - too heavy, underpowered, and look like Cherokees with birth defects. Funny thing, though, the Duchess flies very well (because it has enough power).
 
I don't have a lot of time in them but I thought it was a nice flying plane. There is always a bit of disappointment when 200hp only gets you a little more than 172 speed but the cabin is comfy. I was flying out of ABQ at 5300ft and it seemed to climb well enough. I suppose the whole point is that you must decide what you're looking for and then find the plane that fits the bill. If you find the plane first you may find it won't do what you want. The sierra isn't a bonanza for sure but its a good plane....


Frank
 
If someone gave me Sierra, I would douse it with 100LL and set a match to it, and not even worry about making an insurance claim. I would be doing the world a favor by making sure there was one less of these around.

You get all the speed of a fixed gear, with all the maintenance of a retract. Yay!

Cruises at 130? In MPH maybe. I was getting my commercial in one while I owned a PA28-180. My 180 was faster than the Sierra.

Climb performance? Climbs like a homesick pig. Forget what the book says, the take off roll is like David's current ass-dragging avatar, and once off the ground, it's like trying to push Roseanne and Oprah up a hill in a wheelbarrow with a flat tire.

But it is awesome at emergency descents, because it doesn't want to stay up in the air. Probably because all the other airplanes are making fun of it, and it wants to get away from them. "But, I'm a Beechcraft!" All the other planes are saying, "Yeah, whatever Air Pig."

It is comfortable, I will say that, but the positives end there. Of course, it's also like riding a moped or a fat chick...


I've flown a few Sierras over the years and while not rocket ships, they were all much better than whatever mis-rigged worn out clap trap you were flying. 127-130kts is an honest cruise speed for a decent one.
 
Sierra and sundowner are both Ho hummers. Save more money buy a mooney.

If someone is looking at a Sierra for room and comfort, suggesting a Mooney probably isn't the best idea.
 
The Sierra was designed to be a trainer, for the GI bill.

All it needed was retractable gear, 200 HP, and a constant speed prop.

Just like the 200 Arrow and 200 Cardinal. All the manufacturers had much better traveling machines. When the GI bill stopped in Sept of 1978, thousands of instructors like me were out of a job and there was a glut of Sierras, Cardinals, and Arrows on the market.
 
I'm six feet. A mooney was very comfortable for me and wife. Now if your a station wagon type and like to haul the kids, a dog and Coleman stove, etc. the mooney is not for you. the mooney is like a porsche with wings, fast, good looking, easy to fly. I very rarely flew three people, never four. I bought the mooney for me, not for passengers.( About the g.i. Bill. If it had not been for its inception, most small airports would be already closed up. It was a miracle for the small operator.)
 
Last edited:
If someone gave me Sierra, I would douse it with 100LL and set a match to it, and not even worry about making an insurance claim. I would be doing the world a favor by making sure there was one less of these around.

You get all the speed of a fixed gear, with all the maintenance of a retract. Yay!

Cruises at 130? In MPH maybe. I was getting my commercial in one while I owned a PA28-180. My 180 was faster than the Sierra.

Climb performance? Climbs like a homesick pig. Forget what the book says, the take off roll is like David's current ass-dragging avatar, and once off the ground, it's like trying to push Roseanne and Oprah up a hill in a wheelbarrow with a flat tire.

But it is awesome at emergency descents, because it doesn't want to stay up in the air. Probably because all the other airplanes are making fun of it, and it wants to get away from them. "But, I'm a Beechcraft!" All the other planes are saying, "Yeah, whatever Air Pig."

It is comfortable, I will say that, but the positives end there. Of course, it's also like riding a moped or a fat chick...

Post of the year
 
I have a bit of time in both the Sierra and Sundowner.

Both give up a lot of speed for comfort. It's a trade some are willing to make. And they both exude typical Beechcraft quality.

Still, I would far prefer a well maintained Grumman Tiger or even Cheetah - far sportier handling and better performance. All without the weight, complexity and cost of retractable gear, in the case of the Sierra.

But That's Just Me™!
 
It seems like everyone I've talked who's owned a Sierra likes it, but very few want them because they prefer the extra speed that other aircraft offer.
 
<------suggesting a Mooney is always the best idea. :lol:

Sure if I want to hold my arms like I'm a T-Rex because there isn't enough lateral width for my arm to rest at my side from my shoulder already being pressed against the side panel, and also hold my head like I'm Rain Man, because the curvature of the fuselage doesn't allow me enough head room to sit like a normal person.

Gave a flight review in the "spacious" J model, and when I got out I was stumbling around like a pre-wheelchair Stephen Hawking, from being a Rain Main like T-Rex for an hour and a half.
 
I've owned a B model Sierra for a few years now and I can get right around 137 knots out of mine. For me, the comfort, pilot side door, visibility, 270 lb cargo area with separate door and the relatively low cost to maintain and operate have, so far, all made it impossible for me trade up to a faster plane, such as a Bonanza or similar.

I also mostly use the plane for either a 120nm trip and a 320nm trip, so while extra speed is always nice, the pluses I listed above have outweighed saving 10 minutes of extra flying. The first thing I did when I bought my Sierra was to join the type club, it's been an invaluable resource so far: http://beechaeroclub.org For me, the Sierra has been a fantastic plane because I feel like it fits my primary mission. If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me or check out the BAC site listed above.

Speed: 137 knots
Useful: 940 lbs.
Flight characteristics: I haven't flown a ton of different planes, but the Sierra feels very stable to me. I've had a comm/safety pilot tell me he thought it was one of the smoothest flying GA planes he had been in.

The visibility inside of the plane is quite good. You sit almost in front of the wings, so you can still get a pretty solid ground sight-picture in the plane, which you don't always find in low-wing aircraft. The glareshield seems to sit lower than what you find in a 172 as well, so the forward visibility is also great.
 
Last edited:
Back in the day I gave a bunch of dual in Beech Sundowners, Sierras and Duchesses at the flight school I worked at. The baby Beeches handle very well, they are very comfortable and they are somewhat slower than the competition. You'll have to answer the question if that 5 to 10 knot speed penalty is an issue on the typical 200 to 300 mile flight. It never was for me and the cabin comfort and visibility made the Sierra my wife's favorite light SEL traveling machine. Your mileage may differ.
 
Ya know, people talk about the slower speeds as if it were 5 min here, and 15 min there per trip, and that's certainly true. However - don't discount that this adds up in terms of hours flown, hours on engine, prop, airframe, fuel burned, etc.

Sure, the Sierra is only 15 min more on a 240NM round trip over the Bonanza at 155kts, but if you do that same trip four times, you just put another hour on the plane. It's a matter of efficiency, and the Sierra and Mouse just aren't efficient. Over the life of the engine, that means you are burning another 10 gallons in your four trip example, you are putting on another hour of tach time, and another hour of hobbs.

Efficiency matters, and that's why I've never developed much love for the baby Beech. That extra time and fuel could be better spent on a more efficient plane, whether it is the Bo, or Mooney M20, or maybe a Cardinal RG(although I've been told they aren't much better). I say, if you're gonna pull the wheels up, might as well go for the smoothest thing out there, and deal with the same basic mx while using less fuel, time, and mx based hours.

YMMV, things are closer than they appear, don't try this at home, pro driver on a closed course, and settling may have occurred.
 
Last edited:
when I got out I was stumbling around like a pre-wheelchair Stephen Hawking, from being a Rain Main like T-Rex for an hour and a half.

*snork* I'm 6'2", and have no problems with the Mooney, and I'm long torso (my inseam is only 32"). You just must be getting old, cranky man ;)

BTW, once at altitude on smooth days I rock the seat back, plenty of room. Like riding in a limo.
 
*snork* I'm 6'2", and have no problems with the Mooney, and I'm long torso (my inseam is only 32"). You just must be getting old, cranky man ;)

BTW, once at altitude on smooth days I rock the seat back, plenty of room. Like riding in a limo.

All I know is I had to sit with my head cranked over to the left to keep from banging on the headliner and my right arm in front of me because my right shoulder was pressed TIGHT against the side. And you know that I am not fat. 33" waist, and I can still get into a 32 if I want to sound like Michael Jackson. I moved the seat forward, and backwards, no relief. Legroom was fine, but I will never get how anyone will ever say Mooney is comfy unless they are Bilbo Baggins sized.

Their idea of comfy and mine must be about as far apart as cosmic rays and radio waves.
 
Last edited:
All I know is I had to sit with my head cranked over to the left to keep from banging on the headliner and my right arm in front of me because my right shoulder was pressed TIGHT against the side. And you know that I am not fat.

Pilot seat has two knobs under the front edge of the seat, one controls seat height, the other backrest angle. I honestly can't remeber if the right seat has the same adjustments, it's been a long while since I've ridden right seat. I'll look next time I'm in the plane.

I'm thinking the right seat doesn't have the adjustments, but if it does, you need to crank on those next time you're in a J.
 
Pilot seat has two knobs under the front edge of the seat, one controls seat height, the other backrest angle. I honestly can't remeber if the right seat has the same adjustments, it's been a long while since I've ridden right seat. I'll look next time I'm in the plane.

I'm thinking the right seat doesn't have the adjustments, but if it does, you need to crank on those next time you're in a J.

I'm thinking the older models may not have height adjustments on the seat. I know mine does, and it's a very nice feature. I'm 5'10" so I prefer to raise the seat slightly to give me a good view over the panel for landings. My friend is 6'0" and he always lowers it.

Shoulder width can be fun, but that goes for the cherokee I used to fly, also.
 
I was stumbling around like a pre-wheelchair Stephen Hawking, from being a Rain Main like T-Rex for an hour and a half.

and I can still get into a 32 if I want to sound like Michael Jackson.

Their idea of comfy and mine must be about as far apart as cosmic rays and radio waves.

I don't know if you're a good CFI or not, but you sure know how to describe stuff. :rofl:
 
Ya know, people talk about the slower speeds as if it were 5 min here, and 15 min there per trip, and that's certainly true. However - don't discount that this adds up in terms of hours flown, hours on engine, prop, airframe, fuel burned, etc.
(snip)
Efficiency matters,
(snip)
That extra time and fuel could be better spent on a more efficient plane...


Prime case in point: My old Cherokee made the trip from Texas to Oshkosh in 8 hours, burning 72 gallons of avgas running at "full rental power". The RV-6 makes the same trip in 5 hours, burning 42 gallons for the trip, and not having to run the holy snot out of the engine either.

That's three hours time savings and 30 gallons of fuel saved each way, or 6 hours and 60 gallons of fuel saved for the round trip.

Efficiency matters, indeed. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Ya know, people talk about the slower speeds as if it were 5 min here, and 15 min there per trip, and that's certainly true. However - don't discount that this adds up in terms of hours flown, hours on engine, prop, airframe, fuel burned, etc.

Sure, the Sierra is only 15 min more on a 240NM round trip over the Bonanza at 155kts, but if you do that same trip four times, you just put another hour on the plane. It's a matter of efficiency, and the Sierra and Mouse just aren't efficient. Over the life of the engine, that means you are burning another 10 gallons in your four trip example, you are putting on another hour of tach time, and another hour of hobbs.

Efficiency matters, and that's why I've never developed much love for the baby Beech. That extra time and fuel could be better spent on a more efficient plane, whether it is the Bo, or Mooney M20, or maybe a Cardinal RG(although I've been told they aren't much better). I say, if you're gonna pull the wheels up, might as well go for the smoothest thing out there, and deal with the same basic mx while using less fuel, time, and mx based hours.

YMMV, things are closer than they appear, don't try this at home, pro driver on a closed course, and settling may have occurred.
But... (There's always a but.) Why is the extra speed required for the local flights that seem to comprise the majority of most of our flights? Also, what about those guys who are interested in building time? That extra .1 to .2 on the longer cross countries doesn't hurt a thing. I get the "must go fast" thing, I make my living in the left front seat of a transport category jet, but for extra speed to be meaningful it's got to be significant. 5 to 10 knots is usually not significant except on longer flights.
 
But... (There's always a but.) Why is the extra speed required for the local flights that seem to comprise the majority of most of our flights? Also, what about those guys who are interested in building time? That extra .1 to .2 on the longer cross countries doesn't hurt a thing. I get the "must go fast" thing, I make my living in the left front seat of a transport category jet, but for extra speed to be meaningful it's got to be significant. 5 to 10 knots is usually not significant except on longer flights.

Not my flights. I bought my plane to go places, not to look at the flat land of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. Gulf of Mexico non stop? Don't mind if I do! I'm not doing that in a 172, Cherokee, Sierra, etc...
 
But... (There's always a but.) Why is the extra speed required for the local flights that seem to comprise the majority of most of our flights? Also, what about those guys who are interested in building time? That extra .1 to .2 on the longer cross countries doesn't hurt a thing. I get the "must go fast" thing, I make my living in the left front seat of a transport category jet, but for extra speed to be meaningful it's got to be significant. 5 to 10 knots is usually not significant except on longer flights.

So buy the Bo/Mooney, turn the throttle back to Sierra/Mouse speeds, run LOP, lower mx, lower fuel burn, more flight time.

I make my living sitting on my couch fixing the internet. I just solved a problem 1700 miles away from me that was causing some serious workarounds for data traffic.

Efficiency matters.
 
So buy the Bo/Mooney, turn the throttle back to Sierra/Mouse speeds, run LOP, lower mx, lower fuel burn, more flight time.

I make my living sitting on my couch fixing the internet. I just solved a problem 1700 miles away from me that was causing some serious workarounds for data traffic.

Efficiency matters.
Buy a Baby Beech and put the difference in the bank - it will likely pay for a lot of fuel or several years worth of insurance, and maintenance. Cost effectiveness matters too. ;)
 
Back
Top